S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) ALTHOUGH the matter was listed under the heading for Admission , it was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. ( 2 ) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed to punish the alleged contemnor for alleged violation of the order passed by this Court dated 15-6-2001 in Writ Petition No. 26378 of 2000. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are: a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the aforementioned writ petition holding. "we, therefore, are of the opinion that no further permanent structures including those involving commercial activities may be allowed to be raised on or near the water spread or catchment area. However, the other aspects of the proposed activities viz. , construction of an amusement park, etc. , may be allowed. But rior thereto, the A. P. Pollution Control Board must go into all aspects of the matter including the questions raised herein and certify that creation of such entertainment parks, etc. , for the purpose of encouraging tourism would result only in sustainable development which would not create any ecologicial imbalance". ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh on 16-6-2001 requesting him to stop further construction that is taking place in two places in view of the aforementioned judgment of this Court. On 18-6-2001, the petitioner is said to have addressed another letter to the contemnor stating that construction and development activities are being carried in the enclosed site on the left of the road, which forms of water body. It appears that he had also made representation to the Member Secretary of Pollution Control Board in this regard. For the purpose of initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the contemnor, the directions issued by this Court vis-a-vis the alleged contemnor s acts must be constructed strictly. Only in a case where it is found that the alleged contemnors have wilfully violated the order of this Court, a proceeding under the Act should be initiated. ( 5 ) THE construction activities being carried out, as has been stated by the petitioner, are outside the catchment area and not on or near the water passed. The Bench directed that no further construction should be made in the lake or catchment area. ( 5 ) THE construction activities being carried out, as has been stated by the petitioner, are outside the catchment area and not on or near the water passed. The Bench directed that no further construction should be made in the lake or catchment area. The place in which construction activities that arc being carried on and the Hussainsagar Lake are divided by a road. The fact as regards the existence of three roads will go a long way in construing the aforementioned judgment. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the scope and purport of our judgment, it cannot be said that the place in which the constructions being carried on either form part of Hussain Sagar or its catchment area. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no wilful violation of our judgment in the aforementioned writ petition has taken place so as to punish the contemnor herein for commission of contempt of Court. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in the contempt case, which is dismissed accordingly.